M.C. v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2015 HRTO 1187

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

M.C., H.D., K.F., Mo.H., Mi.H., and D.A. Applicants

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: September 8, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1187 Indexed as: M.C. v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

M.C., H.D., K.F., Mo.H., Mi.H., and D.A., Applicants Eric Letts, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Respondent Mimi Singh, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether these Applications should be processed together for the purpose of a joint summary hearing.

2In June 2015, the Tribunal issued several Case Assessment Directions, which directed that these Applications proceed to a summary hearing to determine whether they should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they will succeed.

3On June 26, 2015, the Tribunal sent the parties a letter, which proposed processing these Applications together for the purpose of a joint summary hearing, and invited the parties to file written submissions if they objected to this proposal.

4On July 10, 2015, the applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which opposed the unconditional consolidation of these Applications. The RFOP then set out the three orders that the applicants are requesting that would result in them agreeing to a consolidation of these Applications.

5On July 29, 2015, the respondent filed written submissions, which consented to the Tribunal’s proposal to process these Applications together for the purpose of a joint summary hearing.

6Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together.

7In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal adopted the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2002 CanLII 45928 (CHRT), which set out the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to consolidate or hear proceedings together:

(a) The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of the witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;

(b) The potential prejudice to the respondents that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each respondent as issues unique to the other respondent are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one respondent or the other; and

(c) Whether there are common issues of fact or law.

8In their submissions, the applicants stated that the Tribunal should also consider the potential prejudice to them that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each applicant as issues unique to the other applicants are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one applicant or the other. This is a fair point. Therefore, I will also consider this factor in deciding whether the Tribunal should process these Applications together for the purpose of a joint summary hearing

9Having considered the above factors, my view is that these Applications should be processed together for the purpose of a joint summary hearing. There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Furthermore, there is no evidence that processing these Applications together for the purpose of a joint summary hearing will result in significant prejudice to any person.

10A half-day summary hearing by conference call will be held. A Notice of Summary Hearing will follow from the Registrar’s Office.

11I will deal next with the applicants’ request for three orders. First, the applicants requested that these matters be anonymized with the use of their initials in all written communications, decisions, and directions respecting these Applications. In my view, this is an issue that can more appropriately be dealt with by the adjudicator who presides over the summary hearing.

12Second, the applicants requested that the Tribunal order its Registrar to provide all communications to them through email. This is an odd request given that the Registrar is not a party in these proceedings, and it appears to be about an administrative issue. If the applicants have concerns about how communications from the Registrar are being delivered to them, they should raise their concerns directly with the Registrar.

13Third, the applicants requested that the Tribunal order that all of the applicants have until July 30, 2015 to file materials for the summary hearing. I assume that the applicants are referring to the Case Assessment Directions’ direction that the parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases they intend to rely upon at the summary hearing no later than 35 days after the date of the Case Assessment Directions.

14In view of the intervening proposal raised by the Tribunal, I see no reason not to grant an extension of time for the parties deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases. Therefore, the direction is amended to the following: Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases that they intend to rely upon at the summary hearing.

ORDER

15The Tribunal makes the following orders and directions:

1. The Applications will be processed together for the purpose of a joint summary hearing.

2. A half-day summary hearing by conference call will be held.

3. Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases that they intend to rely upon at the summary hearing.

4. The applicants’ request that these matters be anonymized will be dealt with by the adjudicator who presides over the summary hearing.

5. The applicants should raise their concerns about how communications are being delivered to them directly with the Registrar.

16I am not seized of this matter.